Religious radicals' fear of "humanism" is really telling. What they actually hate is humans. Sagan forbid we help each other struggle through our own sins and virtues, without prostrating ourselves like worms before a supposedly superior power who is conveniently silent and does nothing to help or guide us.

No Such Agency:Religious radicals' fear of "humanism" is really telling. What they actually hate is humans. Sagan forbid we help each other struggle through our own sins and virtues, without prostrating ourselves like worms before a supposedly superior power who is conveniently silent and does nothing to help or guide us.

Agreed, my favorite part if the article is where they mention that humanist weddings outnumbered catholic weddings in Scotland. Makes me proud to be 1/4 Scottish.

I'm not sure why anyone can object to a Pagan wedding. Modern paganism might be a random mishmash of all sorts of mystical hoohaa especially the 1960s....but then so are most religions. The Catholic Church rejigs itself all the time throughout history.

Paganism in some form has more of ma right to call itself a religion than most. It's been around, by definition, since humans first bowed to the sky.

Its like the idiots saying gays getting married will weaken marriage. What? Because some dude is taking it up the arse from his husband its going to make my marriage less... how exactly?

To each their own... in the end marriage is a personal thing between two people... how they got there... and how they stay there (as long as consensual) is their business.

I even don't care if more than two people get married as long as all members of union are OK with it. Why should it worry me... of course have to make sure benefits don't carry over to more than two or it could easily be abused as a tax avoidance scheme.

Resident Muslim:Speaking of which, and I'm thinking (asking?) out loud here...are there any arguments FOR gay marriage that don't also argue for polygamy?

/not having a legal structure doesn't count, I said FOR, not against//do it for the turtles!!///slashies

So basically, you poisoned the question by eliminating the main reason why it's not done.

Gay marriage is a reprinting of the forms. Poly is deciding how thousands of rights and benefits and legal proceedings should be altered to account for 3+ parties instead of just two.

And frankly, it's an entirely seperate discussion with unique issues all to itself. there is nothing currently about Straight marriage that doesn't also lead to arguments for poly, and people have been pushing for it for thousands of years in one way or another.

Resident Muslim:Speaking of which, and I'm thinking (asking?) out loud here...are there any arguments FOR gay marriage that don't also argue for polygamy?

/not having a legal structure doesn't count, I said FOR, not against//do it for the turtles!!///slashies

How many arguments do you hear that don't invoke the [Christian] Bible? How many want to make Abraham, David, Solomon's and most other Hebrew patriarchs' marriages invalid (to say nothing of that special incestual triangle of Joseph, Mary, and their little motherfarker (the holy ghost is the son, amiright))? Arguments for granting equal rights tend to argue for granting more rights. Arguments for special treatment for the privileged tend to cover other cases as well (notice how often miscegenation arguments get reused for gay marriage).

Bungles:I'm not sure why anyone can object to a Pagan wedding. Modern paganism might be a random mishmash of all sorts of mystical hoohaa especially the 1960s....but then so are most religions. The Catholic Church rejigs itself all the time throughout history.

Paganism in some form has more of ma right to call itself a religion than most. It's been around, by definition, since humans first bowed to the sky.

Jacob_Roberson:Bungles: I'm not sure why anyone can object to a Pagan wedding. Modern paganism might be a random mishmash of all sorts of mystical hoohaa especially the 1960s....but then so are most religions. The Catholic Church rejigs itself all the time throughout history.

Paganism in some form has more of ma right to call itself a religion than most. It's been around, by definition, since humans first bowed to the sky.

Yeah this kinda confused me:Jedi, druid and pagan weddings

/your distinction//it needs a difference

I suggest you look up both those words. Druids may be classed among pagans, but not all pagans are Druids.

Antimatter:Resident Muslim: Speaking of which, and I'm thinking (asking?) out loud here...are there any arguments FOR gay marriage that don't also argue for polygamy?

/not having a legal structure doesn't count, I said FOR, not against//do it for the turtles!!///slashies

So basically, you poisoned the question by eliminating the main reason why it's not done.

Gay marriage is a reprinting of the forms. Poly is deciding how thousands of rights and benefits and legal proceedings should be altered to account for 3+ parties instead of just two.

And frankly, it's an entirely seperate discussion with unique issues all to itself. there is nothing currently about Straight marriage that doesn't also lead to arguments for poly, and people have been pushing for it for thousands of years in one way or another.

I apologize if you felt I "poisoned the question".I was trying to avoid arguments "against", so I didn't want anyone saying "because it is illegal (think marijuana), or we don't have the legal structure for it (think back to the time we didn't have corporation, limited liability or bankruptcy laws).

I was wondering of all the points FOR gay marriage, don't they all apply to polygamy?

/feel silly not knowing how to bold and/or underline//on the phone too///slashies within slashies////slashies inception

Resident Muslim:Speaking of which, and I'm thinking (asking?) out loud here...are there any arguments FOR gay marriage that don't also argue for polygamy?

/not having a legal structure doesn't count, I said FOR, not against//do it for the turtles!!///slashies

Polygamy specifically or Polyandry generally? There is a bit of a difference. The major problem with Polygamy specifically (defined as one husband with multiple wives), as currently practiced in America, mostly by FLDS groups, is precisely the idea of "consent". Most of the women are under-educated and under-aged when wed and have no real say in the process, essentially making it a form of child sexual exploitation. Now, if you are asking should more than two people be allowed to be legally wed under the same legal logic that allows gay marriage? Yes. Absolutely. Marriage, in a legal sense, is nearly indistinguishable from a a business partnership. All of the issues in a multiple marriage, with the exception of some custody rights, have pretty much been dealt with in partnership law. Now the idea of married people voting on a "managing partner" might seem a little weird, but it certainly could be done

yet_another_wumpus:Resident Muslim: Speaking of which, and I'm thinking (asking?) out loud here...are there any arguments FOR gay marriage that don't also argue for polygamy?

/not having a legal structure doesn't count, I said FOR, not against//do it for the turtles!!///slashies

How many arguments do you hear that don't invoke the [Christian] Bible? How many want to make Abraham, David, Solomon's and most other Hebrew patriarchs' marriages invalid (to say nothing of that special incestual triangle of Joseph, Mary, and their little motherfarker (the holy ghost is the son, amiright))? Arguments for granting equal rights tend to argue for granting more rights. Arguments for special treatment for the privileged tend to cover other cases as well (notice how often miscegenation arguments get reused for gay marriage).

Magorn:Resident Muslim: Speaking of which, and I'm thinking (asking?) out loud here...are there any arguments FOR gay marriage that don't also argue for polygamy?

/not having a legal structure doesn't count, I said FOR, not against//do it for the turtles!!///slashies

Polygamy specifically or Polyandry generally? There is a bit of a difference. The major problem with Polygamy specifically (defined as one husband with multiple wives), as currently practiced in America, mostly by FLDS groups, is precisely the idea of "consent". Most of the women are under-educated and under-aged when wed and have no real say in the process, essentially making it a form of child sexual exploitation. Now, if you are asking should more than two people be allowed to be legally wed under the same legal logic that allows gay marriage? Yes. Absolutely. Marriage, in a legal sense, is nearly indistinguishable from a a business partnership. All of the issues in a multiple marriage, with the exception of some custody rights, have pretty much been dealt with in partnership law. Now the idea of married people voting on a "managing partner" might seem a little weird, but it certainly could be done

Thanks for the interesting answer.

Interesting concept and paradigm.I also want to make the distinction if I may in your example of the relationship of a group compared to the relationship of "one to many". I think those would totally be different beasts.

/any way on the iPhone to quote multiple comments? This getting ridiculous.